Tag Archives: United States Constitution

Post navigation

Dear me, I worry so much about the future of our freedoms in the West, as so many begin to “submit” to the values and demands of radical Islam, or what is called “Islamism.”

The other day, I began to worry what would happen if the Islamists took over the American government and placed one of their own in the White House.

I started to think about the agenda that an Islamist president would fulfill. Here are some of my thoughts:

[1] He would make it clear that the American Constitution and the history of American freedoms were no more exemplary than the history of Islam. He would argue that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, he would say, they overlap and share common principles. He would be clear in his moral equivalence between America and the totalitarian Islamic regimes. He might go so far as to say the “common principles” were justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. And if he got away with comparing the American justice system and the tolerance of most Americans with the totalitarian justice systems of the Islamic states and with comparing American tolerance to the intolerance of peoples who riot and kill if they think political cartoons are offensive, then he would go further: He would assure everyone that it is Islam that has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibility of religious tolerance and racial equality. If the American people were too stupid to know about the persecution of Christians and Jews in Muslim countries (including the often-ignored fact of nearly a million Jews being expelled from Arab countries in the ‘40s and ‘50s), then that would just make his task all the easier.

[2] He would as quickly as possible give out important awards, like the Medal of Freedom, to those complicit with the goals of radical Islam, who head NGOs and United Nations bodies that support the notion that the Israelis are the new Nazis and the Palestinians are the new Jews. And he would announce such awards on a date of symbolic significance to the Jews – Tisha B’Av, the historic day of mourning for the loss of the Jewish temples and the occurrence of other national tragedies, so that the Jews knew that he was putting them in their place, for the sooner they got the message, the better.

[3] He would make a quick symbolic snub to Eastern Europe so as to emphasize that the quid pro quo for Russian support of Islamists (outside the former U.S.S.R only, of course) would be the removal of defensive missiles from Poland. He would drive home the point by not informing the Poles very much ahead of the announcement and would make the announcement on September 17, 2009, which everyone in Central Europe knew was the 60th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, followed by the annexation of eastern Poland to the USSR. This would be another important symbolic act to show how in the future the world would be divided between radical Islam, Russia and China.

[4] To further the goals of Radical Islam, the U.S. must be dramatically weakened from the inside, including its once strong and proud economy. He would have to create unheard of budget deficits. He would make a budget that spends more than any other in history, creates the largest deficits in history and imposes the largest tax increases in history. He would spend over a trillion dollars more each year than he took in, and would project a cumulative deficit within ten years of $14.29 trillion – more than the country’s GNP. That way, the U.S. would end up being owned by China and other foreign lenders and the American people would be so preoccupied with their economic woes, and his governments lies about the terms of a socialized medical system, there would be little regard paid to the increasing rate of Islamification of its culture and freedoms.

[5] Any captured terrorists would be given civilian trials, with the same constitutional rights as American citizens, rather than giving them military trials like enemy soldiers receive. This would show that Islamic terrorists are really the same as American citizens and would make it difficult to secure convictions. It would also make it difficult to keep anti-terrorist measures secret, because they would be subject to pre-trial discovery of civilian trials.

[6] He would change many of the terms that are meant to suggest American values are superior to Islamic values. He would downplay any sense that America is at war with radical Islam. In fact, he would avoid using the term “Global War on Terror” [GWOT] and instead use “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

[7] He would refer to any terrorists that kill dozens of Americans on American soil not as “terrorists” or “murderers” or “agents of Islamism” but as mere “extremists” – making such killers no more evil than, say, right-wing Republicans. He would not do anything to stop Islamists infiltrating the American military.

The rest of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network is admiring the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for its success in forging interfaith partnerships. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has announced that its 19th annual banquet will honor the Islamist that has become the face of that success: Sayyid Syeed of ISNA.

CAIR blasted out an email announcing Syeed as the winner of the 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award. The biography provided by CAIR in the email shows how Syeed has dedicated his life to the Islamist cause, moving from one U.S. Brotherhood entity to the next.

Today, he is the Director of ISNA’s Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances. Prior to that, he served for 12 years as the Secretary-General of ISNA. In 2006, he was videotapedsaying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

In his capacity as ISNA’s main interfaith liaison, Syeed has established relationships with a long list of churches, synagogues, other faith groups and the Obama Administration. President Obama sent a videotaped address to ISNA for its 50th annual convention, singling out its interfaith campaign for praise.

ISNA chose Syeed for this role because is one of their most seasoned officials.

He was president of the Muslim Students Association from 1980 to 1983, the first Muslim Brotherhood front set up in the U.S. He has also been the general secretary of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. From 1984 to 1994, he was the director the director of academic outreach for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

In 1988, right in the middle of Syeed’s tenure at IIIT, an FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network said that IIIT’s leaders had a six-phase plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The current task was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.”

The rest of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network is admiring the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for its success in forging interfaith partnerships. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has announced that its 19th annual banquet will honor the Islamist that has become the face of that success: Sayyid Syeed of ISNA.

CAIR blasted out an email announcing Syeed as the winner of the 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award. The biography provided by CAIR in the email shows how Syeed has dedicated his life to the Islamist cause, moving from one U.S. Brotherhood entity to the next.

Today, he is the Director of ISNA’s Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances. Prior to that, he served for 12 years as the Secretary-General of ISNA. In 2006, he was videotaped saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

In his capacity as ISNA’s main interfaith liaison, Syeed has established relationships with a long list of churches, synagogues, other faith groups and the Obama Administration. President Obama sent a videotaped address to ISNA for its 50th annual convention, singling out its interfaith campaign for praise.

ISNA chose Syeed for this role because is one of their most seasoned officials.

He was president of the Muslim Students Association from 1980 to 1983, the first Muslim Brotherhood front set up in the U.S. He has also been the general secretary of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. From 1984 to 1994, he was the director the director of academic outreach for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

In 1988, right in the middle of Syeed’s tenure at IIIT, an FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network said that IIIT’s leaders had a six-phase plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The current task was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.”

As IIIT’s director of academic outreach, Syeed was the point man in achieving that objective. He then went on to lead ISNA from 1994 to 2006. Brotherhood documents identify all four groups he led as its fronts.

In 2011, Wahhaj offered the following advice to a large Muslim audience, as reported by the Clarion Project: “The trap we fall into is having a premature discussion about Sharia when we are not there yet.”

Wahhaj should follow his own advice, as it is his words that are among the most damning evidence.

As momentum builds across the U.S. to reinforce safeguards for the primacy of American laws in the U.S. legal system through legislation at the state level, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are beginning to panic.

To date, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have all enacted legislation that would ensure primacy for U.S. Constitutional law in cases where enforcing foreign laws or judgments, including Islamic law (sharia), “would deprive a party of a constitutional right or liberty,” as explained by David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC).

In mid-summer 2013, the North Carolina legislature, both House and Senate, passed HB 522, the Foreign Laws/Protect Constitutional Rights Bill, with broad bipartisan support. Not surprisingly, the HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, has mounted an email blitz campaign, urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to veto the bill instead of signing it.

Thus, contrary to some of the criticism aimed at this bill, there is nothing in its language that would prohibit consideration of foreign law in North Carolina courts: it is only if and when application of such foreign law (sharia or any other) would deprive persons before a North Carolina court the rights to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution (and its derivative laws).

In such a case, American law would take precedence over foreign law. In cases that involve no conflict between U.S. law and foreign law, comity (mutual recognition of a respective country’s legislation) may be applied.

Alarmingly, not only do some judges not understand what sharia is, but make decisions that defer to it even when those decisions conflict with U.S. Constitutional protections. Islamic law is antithetical to American laws, principles and traditions in many ways, but most specifically in its rejection — and even criminalization — of basic freedoms, including freedom of belief, press, speech, due process, equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to bear arms

Some say that preventing judges from recognizing foreign law when issuing decisions could affect religious arbitration used to handle family and personal disputes.

A growing number of states are targeting what they see as a threat to their court systems: the influence of international laws.

North Carolina last month became the seventh state to pass legislation barring judges from considering foreign law in their decisions, including sharia. The bill awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory.

Six other states — Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee — have already enacted similar legislation since 2010, and at least 25 have introduced such measures, according to the Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life Project.

One exception to this trend is Missouri. In June, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed a foreign law bill, saying it would make international adoptions more difficult.

Sharia, or Islamic law, is both a moral code and religious law that governs all aspects of Muslim life, ranging from religious obligations to family relationships. It is derived from the Quran, the main religious text of Islam, and the teachings of Mohammed, the Muslim prophet.

Many of the bills, including North Carolina’s, would apply only in situations in which invoking foreign law would violate a person’s constitutional rights.

“They exist purely to create a conversation around what sharia is,” said Corey Saylor, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Advocates of the foreign law bans say they safeguard American constitutional liberties, but critics argue they are unnecessary and could complicate international business and contract law.

The bans could also make it difficult to enforce foreign money judgments and matters of family law, like divorce decrees, that are based on a foreign law or religion, said Matthew Duss, a policy analyst at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

“We’ll have to wait for the test cases to come, but there are a range of issues in which these bans could create real legal uncertainty,” Duss said.

Supporters of the legislation, including Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, say that Islamic law is slipping into U.S. courts.

“It’s an affront to the Constitution of the United States,” he said, “and detrimental to those whose rights are infringed.”

In the U.S., sharia, like other religious law, can enter court through divorce and custody cases or in commercial litigation, mainly when contracts cannot be settled in a religious setting. But the exact frequency of such instances is hard to measure.

One outlier is a 2010 New Jersey case, where a state court found that a man did not intend to rape his wife because he thought his religion allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her at any time. An appeals court eventually overturned that ruling.

The wave of state action began in Oklahoma in 2010, when a voter initiative to prohibit sharia in state courts passed with 70% of the popular vote. In 2012, a federal circuit court struck down the measure.

In its wake, the laws have been retooled to ban all foreign law in state courts to avoid targeting one religion.

But some still say the legislation can harm faith groups. Debra Linick, a director at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said foreign law bans could affect religious arbitration used to handle family and personal disputes.

Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina School of Law, said the legislation, particularly North Carolina’s ban, is a solution to a non-existent problem.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on school officials on July 24, 2013 to censor Act for America founder, Brigitte Gabriel, at a Tea Party event planned in Minnesota. The following is some of the text from the CAIR announcement:

(MINNEAPOLIS, MN, 7/24/13) — The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) today called on Independent School District #482 and Little Falls Community High School to consider the negative impact a scheduled speech by an anti-Muslim speaker will have on district students and to rescind approval to hold the event in a school facility.

On July 29, 2013, the Central Minnesota Tea Party will feature anti-Muslim speaker “Brigitte Gabriel” from the hate group ACT! for America at an event in Little Falls Community High School. Click here to read CAIR’s announcement.

Most government officials in Minnesota sign a state oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution. The wording of Minnesota’s oath is: I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will discharge faithfully the duties of the office of … www.sos.state.mn.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4966

Brigitte Gabriel has worked tirelessly to educate the public about the threat that Islamists pose to the freedoms Americans enjoy.

Please stand with Brigitte now by sending the email that Florida Family Association has prepared for you to send to officials at the Independent School District #482 and Little Falls Community High School.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also modify the subject or message text if you wish. Please Note if you have a problem with the prepared email: Internet Explorer 10 is not compatible at this time with our Action Message. If you are using IE 10 please click the link where prompted to “if you have trouble viewing the message text ..” in order to send your email. If you want the ability to edit the email content please use Internet Explorer 9, Firefox or Chrome until Microsoft fixes the IE 10 error.

Religions for Peace USA (RFPUSA), which says it is “the largest and most broadly-based representative multi-religious forum in the United States,” is holding a webinar on July 25 titled, “What You Can Learn from the Fight to End Islamophobia.” The group is yet another coalition of Islamists and their non-Muslim political allies. And, as usual, it is tarring the Islamists’ opponents as “Islamophobes.”

The webinar is being jointly held with the American Center for Outreach, a Tennessee Muslim group that will use the event to highlight its “successful challenge to the nation’s most vehemently anti-Muslim legislation in 2011.”

The seminar is being promoted by the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign, another interfaith bloc allied with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. You’ll notice a lot of cross-pollination if you look at the leadership of RFPUSA, Shoulder-to-Shoulder and ISNA’s declared“interfaith partners.”

Naeem Baig, President of the Islamic Circle of North America, sits on RFPUSA’s Council of Presidents and Executive Council. A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo identifies ICNA as one of its fronts as part of its “kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” The memo instructs its members to use “the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

Popular Imam Zaid Shakir: “If Islam is the basis (of the government), the kafir won’t be equal with the Muslim. The Christian or the Jew will be a dhimmi. They won’t be equal with the Muslim.”

BY RYAN MAURO:

While you were spending Memorial Day Weekend barbequing and honoring the U.S. servicemen who gave their lives for the country,18,000 people attended an annual Muslim-American conference in Connecticut. An additional 14,000 watched online. And the message they heard from one prominent speaker was particularly offensive in light of the holiday: The U.S. Constitution is inferior to Islamic ShariaLaw.

A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo, which defines its “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” lists ICNA as one of its fronts. Predictably, ICNA demands that the U.S. cut off military aid to Egypt in retaliation for the military’s overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The subject of his speech was “The Legitimacy of Secularism” and a video of his speech has been posted online. It was an attack on secularism, modernity and how the U.S. Constitution based “membership” on equal citizenship instead of religion.

The stories of government agency corruption and the blurring of Constitutional guidelines have certainly caused a storm of consternation and outright anger in the past many weeks. It seems each day has provided us with yet one more glimpse into the seedy world of a government that has clearly lost its way, and shed even the appearance of concern for maintaining the public trust.

While the debacle in Benghazi had dominated the national media stage for a few months, it was quickly shifted to the back burner to make room for far more salacious tales starring State Department appointees and prostitution as well as a litany of stories detailing every manner of corrupt behavior.

Learning that the IRS abused its power and deliberately targeted groups with a very specific political leaning was just one more. Certainly the American public has a right to be concerned when the single most powerful agency in government shamelessly exerts its influence and authority against the very Americans it collects money from in order to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

It was as disconcerting to learn that the Department of Justice was gleaning Associated Press documents for who knows what purpose, as it was ironic that the media which has acted as a pro-bono ad agency for this Administration and its agencies should take issue with this particular infringement on our Constitutional “Rights”.

The NSA digital surveillance program really isn’t news except to those who haven’t been concerned about it since the last time it was discussed some 6 or 7 years ago. The fact is, that program really hasn’t changed, it just happened to come to light again but this time in the midst of a list of other abuses of authority and power, levied during this seemingly Teflon coated administration’s second term.

There is no doubt that all of these things give reason for concern. It does however remain to be seen which, if any, of these things will be deemed to be truly illegal or unconstitutional if not arrogantly applied.

The real problem is, these things, while troubling have served a much darker purpose and it appears that purpose is now all but accomplished; Weapons to the Syrian Rebels.

It seems just a little too convenient that all of these “scandals” should appear on the scene right in the middle of Congressional hearings to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi. And being as Congress has yet to learn how to multi-task, they have been oh so easily side-tracked from that most important investigation to these sideshows. What this has managed to do is take the spotlight from Benghazi and away from any suggestion of Administration guilt in order to focus on what may be determined to be not much more than poor judgment in some cases and horrible supervision in others.

Since September 11, 2012, Benghazi has been a mine filled with potential evidence of wrong-headed vision, Administration malfeasance, upper echelon military incompetence, Pentagon and Administration collusion, Administration protectionism and a list of bald face lies.

Tens of thousands of Turks are protesting Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan, but the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is happy to welcome him. On May 18, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) officials met with Erdogan. Of all the things to talk about, ISNA most emphasized the success of its interfaith political alliances. The lesson will not be forgotten by Turkey as it tries to reclaim its position as the leader of the Muslim world.

According to an ISNA press release, Dr. Mohamed Elsanousi, its Community Outreach Director, briefed Erdogan in San Francisco on ISNA’s activism. As an example of its success, ISNA pointed to an interfaith alliance called the Shoulder-to-Shoulder campaign.

Internal U.S. Muslim Brotherhood documents and the U.S. government agree that ISNA is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood identity, despite its denials. The importance it places in its interfaith outreach is evident when you look at its Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances, located within the United Methodist Building in Washington D.C. It is led by former Secretary-General Sayyid Syeed who was recorded in 2006 saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

ISNA also asked for Erdogan’s involvement in an international campaign to help minorities in Muslim countries. This sounds like a “moderate” goal but there’s an Islamist component even here. The international campaign ISNA is talking about is led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Last year, ISNA President Mohamed Magid and Elsanousi traveled to Mauritania for a conference about the “challenges faced by religious minorities in Muslim-majority communities.” It was hosted by the vice chair of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, whose President is Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi. Also present was the Obama Administration’s envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain.

ISNA’s publicized list of “interfaith partners” includes the United Methodist Church, American Baptist Church USA, Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, United Church of Christ, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Hartford Seminary and the National Council of Churches in the USA, among others.

Many of these partners belong to the Shoulder-to-Shoulder campaign that ISNA boasted about to Erdogan. The ISNA-allied interfaith coalition published a letter of protest to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on March 12, 2013, blasting the New York Police Department for showing The Third Jihad.

The Department of Homeland Security, which under Secretary Janet Napolitano has shown a keen interest in monitoring and warning about outspoken conservatives, takes a very different approach in monitoring political Islamists, according to a 2011 memo on protecting the free speech rights of pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists.

In a checklist obtained by The Daily Caller entitled “Countering Violent Extremism Dos and Don’ts” the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties notifies local and national law enforcement officials that it is Obama administration policy to consider specifically Islamic criticism of the American system of government legitimate.

The advice of the Dos and Don’ts list is far more conciliatory. “Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally-protected activity, including disliking the U.S. government without being violent,” the manual’s authors write in a section on training being “sensitive to constitutional values.”

The manual, which was produced by an inter-agency working group from DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center, advises, “Trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.”

The checklist also advised against using moderate Muslim “trainers who are self-professed ‘Muslim reformers’” because they “may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted, unbiased information.”

The manual advises trainees not to assume Muslim Americans are “using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law.”

[Editor’s note: New Gingrich has called for a Federal ban on Sharia law in America.]

Theocracy is inherently oppressive and contrary to America’s core values. It regards God as the sovereign and source of law. It therefore places the coercive power of the state–including interpretation and enforcement of law–in the hands of believers. It excludes non-believers from the body politic and brings them suffering. In total contrast, the Declaration of Independence regards God not as a source of coercive power, but as a guarantor of inalienable rights including liberty and equality. The Declaration states that government derives its sovereign authority or “just powers” not from God, but “from the consent of the governed.” This concept of popular sovereignty is reflected not only in the preamble of the Constitution, but also in the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, Section 4 which obligates the federal government to preserve a republican form of government in every state. The Constitution also precludes theocracy through the First Amendment’s ban on laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting “free exercise” of religious beliefs.

Political Islam or “Islamism” is theocratic. It may be defined as a belief that Islam should control society and politics, not simply personal religious life. Accordingly to the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis, the ideal Islamic polity recognizes God as sole sovereign and law-giver and assigns believers the task of spreading His revelation until the entire world accepts it. This is to be achieved by extending the authority and membership of the community that follows God’s law, the Shariah, which deals with the acquisition and exercise of power and the duties of ruler and subject. [1] Accordingly, Shariah is not simply a prescription for exercising personal belief through activity such as prayer and diet. It is a system of laws that affects the conduct of both believers and non- believers in Islamic theocracies. More ominously, expansion of the community that regards God as sovereign suggests contraction and disempowerment of the community which does not.

Political Islam therefore challenges the United States Constitution, particularly its embrace of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty. There is concern that this challenge includes not only violent terrorism but an ideological struggle against non-Islamic courts and legal systems and the principle that the people, not God, are the source of political and legal authority .There is similarly concern that Islamists seek to establish “functionally Islamic governments” in every nation [2] and that toward this end, they will create divisive alternative communities by insinuating Islamic rules of conduct for the temporal world into courts and other institutions. There is even concern that Islamism will limit traditional free speech through application of its restrictions on defamation of religion or blasphemy. [3]

Such concerns have resulted in “anti-shariah legislation” in various states and subsequent court battles over whether such laws violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. However, such concerns raise issues of national importance because efforts to make public institutions Shariah-compliant may violate not only the First Amendment’s provisions on religion or free speech but also the Fourteenth Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. The former guarantees due process and equal protection; the latter proclaims the supremacy of federal statutes, treaties and constitutional provisions. Moreover, Article IV, Section 4 creates an affirmative federal obligation to guarantee a non-theocratic, “Republican Form of Government” in every state.

The very essence of republican government is the belief that sovereignty rests with the people. [4]. Our Constitution is derived exclusively from the people and alterable only by them through elected representatives. Similarly, elected representatives and elected or duly-appointed judges, not religious leaders, enact and interpret our statutory law. [5] These principles of popular sovereignty support the Article IV guarantee of republican government and are related to the concept of equality. Thus, the guarantee clause would be invoked in the struggle against slavery and in the post-Civil War struggle to include freed slaves in the body politic. [6] In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection evolved from our concept of republican government, [7] and a state that denies this fundamental right similarly violates Article IV, Section 4. The introduction into American courts, of laws or legal principles derived from a sovereign God or religious texts cannot be tolerated and the federal government has a clear responsibility to keep theocracy out of state courts and other public institutions.

CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”

SHARIAH: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” a1.1, UMDAT AL-­SALIK or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Sha- riah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia,” SEYED QUTB; “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” SEYED ABUL A’ALA MAUDUDI

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM OF RELIGION

CONSTITUTION: FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

SHARIAH: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” QURAN 4:89 “Whoever changed his [Is- lamic] religion, then kill him,” SAHIH AL-­BUKHARI, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom. o9.14, o11.0-­o11.11, UMDAT AL-­SALIK

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM OF SPEECH

CONSTITUTION: FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”SHARIAH: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

FIRST AMENDMENT : FREEDOM TO DISSENT

CONSTITUTION: FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people to pe- tition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

SHARIAH: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give com- fort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

SECOND AMENDMENT : RIGHT TO SELF-­DEFENSE

CONSTITUTION: SECOND AMENDMENT: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

SHARIAH: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

FIFTH, SIXTH & SEVENTH AMENDMENTS : RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL

CONSTITUTION: FIFTH AMENDMENT: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or other- wise infamous crime… without due process of law.” SIXTH AMENDMENT: guarantees a “pub- lic trial by an impartial jury.” SEVENTH AMENDMENT: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”

SHARIAH: “Muhammad said, ‘No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).’” HADITH SAHIH AL-­BUKHARI Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

SHARIAH: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” QURAN 5:38 A raped woman is punished: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” SURA 24:2

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT : RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS

CONSTITUTION: FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.

The premise, long used by stealth jihadists, is that the U.S. Constitution gives them the right to build mosques in the U.S. and spread Islam. Retired Attorney Publius Huldah recently spoke at an Act for America event in Fayetteville, TN and dismantled that premise.

Dr. Benjamin Carson captivated the media’s attention with his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, but another attendee deserved some of the spotlight: Sayyid Syeed, the interfaith liaison for the Islamic Society of North America, who was recorded in 2006 saying, “[O]ur job is to change the constitution of America.”

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) originates in the Muslim Brotherhood, but has been embraced on a bi-partisan basis. FBI sources reporting back to the mid-1980s identified it as a Brotherhood front. In 2007, the U.S. government designated ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, listing it as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

A 1991 Brotherhood memo, which describes its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” likewise mentions ISNA and several of its components as its fronts. In 2009, a federal judge upheld ISNA’s designation as an unindicted co-conspirator because of “ample” evidence linking it to Hamas.

The same 1991 memo lays out how the Brotherhood network must “posses a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption,’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’” It explicitly talks about using the “hands” of the “nonbelievers” to advance its agenda.

The work of ISNA and its allies in forging interfaith partnerships is undoubtedly a fulfillment of this directive. ISNA has used these interfaith relationships to slam its critics as “Islamophobes,” as it did at an event on January 15 at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, D.C.

Sayyid Syeed, ISNA’s Secretary-General from 1994 to 2006, is now the Director of ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances. New footage has been released of him stating in 2006, “[O]ur job is to the change the constitution of America,” as seen in the film, The Grand Deception.

Syeed and ISNA were invited to the National Prayer Breakfast at which President Obama spoke. Syeed also addressed about 100 evangelical leaders during the Middle East/North Africa Prayer Breakfast. Dr. Mohamed Elsanousi, ISNA’s Director of Community Outreach, also spoke.